Duff photographer
Active member
Okay, this is a really long one so prepare yourself...
This is also a bit of a hybrid post as this could equally be posted under one of the 35mm forums so please bear with me. I should also note that I am an image quality* (IQ) freak - I don't care much about high mega-pixel counts but I do care about native resolution bite (not contrast), realistic look (not plastic), etc. I'm not too bothered about enlargement capability - 18" to 24" is more than ample and anything larger required is catered for by my large format gear. I'd much rather have a 12" image that has utterly, draw-droppingly stunning 3D IQ than a 24 inches of low tonal nasty contrasty plastic 'meh' (yes, I know, that's partly down to poor image processing and camera system limitations).
To put it all into perspective I cover the whole range of photography, invariably natural history related. Landscape and 'large print' capability is covered by my large format gear. My bird/mammal/reptile photography is covered by my Nikon (APS-C) telephoto's (200 to 600mm). My macro stuff is sort of covered by my Nikon gear using non-Nikon lenses (a couple of Schneiders) but I'll touch upon this later. The inbetween general photography stuff is catered for by my Zeiss ZF lenses (25 to 85mm).
I've been reassessing my (35mm) camera gear lately! One of the reasons for this is the lack of IQ (photographer's failings aside) for many of my images. The Nikons are very good but they rely more on contrast and lack out-and-out resolution, bar maybe the 200mm f2 and to some extent the 300mm f2.8. I can't do much about this - the only other lenses that equal or better them are the expensive Leica R APO-Telyts - some images I've seen taken with these lenses make my heart drop! The Zeiss ZF lenses are generally excellent and IQ was better than the best equivalent Nikons (for more reasons than you think) when I test compared them way back when. However, even these vary in quality - the 35mm, while still excellent, is not up there with the best of the other focal lengths, or 35mms from other makers (e.g., Leica R). Same with the first version of their 85mm. I've never really been happy with either as they lacked the real bite my 50mm macro and 25mm can have. I did have a 100mm macro but the 1:2 mag' ratio and major purple fringing made me send it back. I did say that I am finicky didn't I?!! My Schneiders for macro are what they are - the main one being the Apo-Digitar 120mm. While this is one of Schneider's sharpest digitars (I use the term 'sharp' generically), sharper than most 35mm macros, it covers up to 6x9 on film which means that 35mm Full Frame (FF), let alone APS-C, is just not making full use of it. Consequently, it lacks that bite that my Contax 645 (C645) 120mm Makro has.
...and now were getting close to the crux of the question. Way back when I was more naive than I am now I had a C645 system. I wasn't naive to own it but I was when I stupidly sold it (for a stupidly low price). I had heard the word 'on the sreet and interweb' was that 35mm digital was as good as or better than MF. My subsequent experiences of 35mm digital proved this was a load of codswallop and I regretted selling it although I held on to my 120mm makro. Even with today's lenses, nothing I have is able to better (or at least by a large margin) the C645 120mm macro, for example.
I missed the resolution, micro-contrast, and 'feel' of the IQ of my C645 lenses :-( ...and the quality of those 645 slides compared with my APS-C sized digital is better, despite the disadvantage of film grain and advantage of the larger 'sensor' size of 56x42mm. It's also that 'look' that really wows people above the stuff I've taken with even the best of my Nikons, and enourages them to buy my images. The only lens series I feel come close to it, other than the Zeiss Z series, is the Leica R. However, to obtain the best of Leica's Rs means spending a 4-figure sum for each lens! C645 lenses, on the other hand, are relatively dirt cheap, except the 80mm (whose astonomical price still befuddles me). I have little to play with financially and the idea was to sell off some would-be-surplus equipment and with that buy some second-hand C645 lenses with the money recouped.
I have therefore been playing around with the idea, for some time now, to adapt C645 lenses to a FF 35mm digital. [1.] The bloke in China ('Steelchan') who made full C645/Nikon adapters appears no longer to be active. [2.] Fringer do a full adapter for the Sony-E mount cameras and [3.] Leica, of course, have their adapter for their 'super-35mm' Leica S. Point 1 is not an option; point 2 is possible with a second-hand Sony; and point 3 is lots of money, even second-hand. I could get a C645 film body but they are no longer serviced, parts are drying up, and despite all that, prices are through the roof (an early Leica S2 can be had for the same price as an 'as new' C645 body!! Go figure.). Point 2 (Fringer/Sony) seems be the most viable option. I can retain my Nikon APS-C for wildlife and macro and use the Sony FF for some macro and all general photography.
SO.... the question is, bearing in mind that I am only familiar with C645 on film, do the C645 lenses really cross-over well to 35mm FF format in the real world? Do they retain their character on the smaller sensor? How do they compare with the equivalents (or as near as) in the Zeiss Z, or Leica R range (if known), for example, does the C645 120mm makro keep up with or as good as the Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm in retaining that resolution and 'look'? In short, how does the C645 lens line-up compare with the best of the equivalent 35mm on FF 35mm? (Disclaimer: yes, i know, on paper the 35mm lenses should out-perform lenses that cover a larger sensor area but the reality is that many MF lenses outperform most 35mm lenses.). If money were no obstacle then I'd get the best of the best but this is as much an economic issue as it is an IQ issue. I again stress that I'm not interested in mega-pixels and how big I can print but only in image quality - tonal range, resolution, clarity, 3D effect, that visually perceptible but elusive quality that sets an image (other than subject matter) above others.
What would also be interesting, and to cover all my options, is with reference to the Leica S, how do C645 lenses on that system compare with the equivalent best lenses (Zeiss Z, Leica R, some Nikons) on the (smaller) FF format? Is that extra 25% of the Leica S sensor enough to make a difference (assuming the best of the Leica/Zeiss 35mm lenses outperfom the C645 ones on a FF 35mm sensor)? Note that I'm leaving out the Leica S lenses themselves. While they appear to speak for themselves and truly are some of the best lenses made the price makes these a total non-option for me.
This C645 IQ question has been raised several times on the 'web but very few comparisons have been made with 35mm lenses. By the way, from some limited experimenting several years ago, I do know C645 standard lenses out-perform equivalent Nikon standard 35mm lenses in resolution and other factors (that test obviously excludes any Nikkors produced since then).
Please also note that I have tried to compare images from the likes of websites like 'Flickr' but variables such as quality of the native image (shake, poor focusing, too high an ISO, etc.), image processing skills, size of the image uploaded, and Flickr's own software mucking about with the jpegs, makes comparing them unrealistic, good or bad.
Many thanks for your patience and my apologies for the long-winded post but I guess it's best to give too much qualifying information than too little.
Any experience and insight greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Duff.
*Edit: Image quality, in this case, could equally be exchanged for image character.
This is also a bit of a hybrid post as this could equally be posted under one of the 35mm forums so please bear with me. I should also note that I am an image quality* (IQ) freak - I don't care much about high mega-pixel counts but I do care about native resolution bite (not contrast), realistic look (not plastic), etc. I'm not too bothered about enlargement capability - 18" to 24" is more than ample and anything larger required is catered for by my large format gear. I'd much rather have a 12" image that has utterly, draw-droppingly stunning 3D IQ than a 24 inches of low tonal nasty contrasty plastic 'meh' (yes, I know, that's partly down to poor image processing and camera system limitations).
To put it all into perspective I cover the whole range of photography, invariably natural history related. Landscape and 'large print' capability is covered by my large format gear. My bird/mammal/reptile photography is covered by my Nikon (APS-C) telephoto's (200 to 600mm). My macro stuff is sort of covered by my Nikon gear using non-Nikon lenses (a couple of Schneiders) but I'll touch upon this later. The inbetween general photography stuff is catered for by my Zeiss ZF lenses (25 to 85mm).
I've been reassessing my (35mm) camera gear lately! One of the reasons for this is the lack of IQ (photographer's failings aside) for many of my images. The Nikons are very good but they rely more on contrast and lack out-and-out resolution, bar maybe the 200mm f2 and to some extent the 300mm f2.8. I can't do much about this - the only other lenses that equal or better them are the expensive Leica R APO-Telyts - some images I've seen taken with these lenses make my heart drop! The Zeiss ZF lenses are generally excellent and IQ was better than the best equivalent Nikons (for more reasons than you think) when I test compared them way back when. However, even these vary in quality - the 35mm, while still excellent, is not up there with the best of the other focal lengths, or 35mms from other makers (e.g., Leica R). Same with the first version of their 85mm. I've never really been happy with either as they lacked the real bite my 50mm macro and 25mm can have. I did have a 100mm macro but the 1:2 mag' ratio and major purple fringing made me send it back. I did say that I am finicky didn't I?!! My Schneiders for macro are what they are - the main one being the Apo-Digitar 120mm. While this is one of Schneider's sharpest digitars (I use the term 'sharp' generically), sharper than most 35mm macros, it covers up to 6x9 on film which means that 35mm Full Frame (FF), let alone APS-C, is just not making full use of it. Consequently, it lacks that bite that my Contax 645 (C645) 120mm Makro has.
...and now were getting close to the crux of the question. Way back when I was more naive than I am now I had a C645 system. I wasn't naive to own it but I was when I stupidly sold it (for a stupidly low price). I had heard the word 'on the sreet and interweb' was that 35mm digital was as good as or better than MF. My subsequent experiences of 35mm digital proved this was a load of codswallop and I regretted selling it although I held on to my 120mm makro. Even with today's lenses, nothing I have is able to better (or at least by a large margin) the C645 120mm macro, for example.
I missed the resolution, micro-contrast, and 'feel' of the IQ of my C645 lenses :-( ...and the quality of those 645 slides compared with my APS-C sized digital is better, despite the disadvantage of film grain and advantage of the larger 'sensor' size of 56x42mm. It's also that 'look' that really wows people above the stuff I've taken with even the best of my Nikons, and enourages them to buy my images. The only lens series I feel come close to it, other than the Zeiss Z series, is the Leica R. However, to obtain the best of Leica's Rs means spending a 4-figure sum for each lens! C645 lenses, on the other hand, are relatively dirt cheap, except the 80mm (whose astonomical price still befuddles me). I have little to play with financially and the idea was to sell off some would-be-surplus equipment and with that buy some second-hand C645 lenses with the money recouped.
I have therefore been playing around with the idea, for some time now, to adapt C645 lenses to a FF 35mm digital. [1.] The bloke in China ('Steelchan') who made full C645/Nikon adapters appears no longer to be active. [2.] Fringer do a full adapter for the Sony-E mount cameras and [3.] Leica, of course, have their adapter for their 'super-35mm' Leica S. Point 1 is not an option; point 2 is possible with a second-hand Sony; and point 3 is lots of money, even second-hand. I could get a C645 film body but they are no longer serviced, parts are drying up, and despite all that, prices are through the roof (an early Leica S2 can be had for the same price as an 'as new' C645 body!! Go figure.). Point 2 (Fringer/Sony) seems be the most viable option. I can retain my Nikon APS-C for wildlife and macro and use the Sony FF for some macro and all general photography.
SO.... the question is, bearing in mind that I am only familiar with C645 on film, do the C645 lenses really cross-over well to 35mm FF format in the real world? Do they retain their character on the smaller sensor? How do they compare with the equivalents (or as near as) in the Zeiss Z, or Leica R range (if known), for example, does the C645 120mm makro keep up with or as good as the Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100mm in retaining that resolution and 'look'? In short, how does the C645 lens line-up compare with the best of the equivalent 35mm on FF 35mm? (Disclaimer: yes, i know, on paper the 35mm lenses should out-perform lenses that cover a larger sensor area but the reality is that many MF lenses outperform most 35mm lenses.). If money were no obstacle then I'd get the best of the best but this is as much an economic issue as it is an IQ issue. I again stress that I'm not interested in mega-pixels and how big I can print but only in image quality - tonal range, resolution, clarity, 3D effect, that visually perceptible but elusive quality that sets an image (other than subject matter) above others.
What would also be interesting, and to cover all my options, is with reference to the Leica S, how do C645 lenses on that system compare with the equivalent best lenses (Zeiss Z, Leica R, some Nikons) on the (smaller) FF format? Is that extra 25% of the Leica S sensor enough to make a difference (assuming the best of the Leica/Zeiss 35mm lenses outperfom the C645 ones on a FF 35mm sensor)? Note that I'm leaving out the Leica S lenses themselves. While they appear to speak for themselves and truly are some of the best lenses made the price makes these a total non-option for me.
This C645 IQ question has been raised several times on the 'web but very few comparisons have been made with 35mm lenses. By the way, from some limited experimenting several years ago, I do know C645 standard lenses out-perform equivalent Nikon standard 35mm lenses in resolution and other factors (that test obviously excludes any Nikkors produced since then).
Please also note that I have tried to compare images from the likes of websites like 'Flickr' but variables such as quality of the native image (shake, poor focusing, too high an ISO, etc.), image processing skills, size of the image uploaded, and Flickr's own software mucking about with the jpegs, makes comparing them unrealistic, good or bad.
Many thanks for your patience and my apologies for the long-winded post but I guess it's best to give too much qualifying information than too little.
Any experience and insight greatly appreciated.
Many thanks,
Duff.
*Edit: Image quality, in this case, could equally be exchanged for image character.
Last edited:
